Brussels, 10/05/2016 (Agence Europe) - In passing the own initiative report by Iliana Iotova (S&D, Bulgaria) by the overwhelming majority of 624 votes to 54, with 7 abstentions on Tuesday 10 May, MEPs in the European Parliament launched a call to the European Commission to draw up an agenda for EU mountainous regions for the next programming period, after 2020.
MEPs call on the Commission, in the first instance, to present a communication containing an “Agenda for EU Mountainous Regions” and, subsequent to this, a White Paper on the development of mountainous regions, based on best practices and involving local, regional and national authorities, and other relevant actors, including economic and social partners and representatives of civil society (Point 18).
Noting that no precise definition of mountainous regions exists in EU regional policy and that the definition used in the European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD) cannot simply be transferred to the specific requirements of cohesion policy, MEPs call on the Commission to adopt a working definition. Such a definition should, they say, take into account additional factors, such as altitude, accessibility and slope. Volcanic regions in islands and outermost regions should also be covered, MEPs say.
They call on the Commission to introduce a territorial impact assessment (Point 2) and undertake a thorough and regular assessment of the condition of mountainous regions in the EU, and analyse data, such as the results of the implementation of cohesion policy operational programmes and indicators on changes in the quality of life and the demography, in order to focus EU funding and policy implementation for optimum value (Point 19). The issue of indicators permeates European debate. Recently, the regional policy commissioner said she was in favour of inclusion of new indicators to better reflect territorial diversity (see EUROPE 11488).
A further important point made in the report is the call from Parliament for greater use of financial instruments in mountainous regions in order to “reach concrete results” (Point 22). This call may go against the will of some peripheral maritime regions which, at a recent political bureau meeting, expressed their concern at the growing tendency to turn to these instruments rather than using subsidies, leading ultimately to greater debt for local and regional authorities (see EUROPE 11493).
Overall, says the rapporteur's office, the text caused no controversy within the Parliament apart from the mention of public-private partnerships, which are opposed by GUE/NGL and Greens/EFA members. (Original version in French by Pascal Hansens)